Product Description

Continuing his series of highly regarded and innovative socio-rhetorical commentaries on the New Testament, Ben Witherington now tackles Romans, perhaps the most profound — and difficult — book of the New Testament.

Interacting with recent treatments of this Pauline letter and with ancient Christian commentators, Witherington shows that the interpretation of Romans since the Reformation has been far too indebted to Augustinian readings of the text as filtered through Luther, Calvin, and others. Instead, Witherington urges a reading of the text in light of early Jewish theology, the historical situation of Rome, and Paul's own rhetorical concerns.

Offering a new translation of the Greek text and new insights into Paul and his world, this commentary sheds fresh light on the meaning of Romans for its original audience and for Christian readers today.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #241427 in Books
• Published on: 2004-03-02
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 421 pages

Customer Reviews

I've waited a long time for a book like this!
Centuries ago Luther wrote in his preface to his translation of Romans that one can not understand this book unless he first understands what the words law, grace, righteousness, flesh and spirit mean. I'll give him that, but trying to make sense out of Romans using his definitions of these words is an effort in futility! One can only make it work if he isolates his readings to a few select verses, or at most, a chapter here and there; taken beyond that point, Paul will appear very confused indeed! Unfortunately, his dubious interpretations have been the foundation of much of Protestant theology.

Only recently have Protestant scholars decided to take a fresh look at Romans and break out of the mold of Luther and Augustine. To do just that (with the help of this book) is a glorious experience--one can actually understand the letters of Paul. You will see that they are in harmony with the rest of the New Testament, no longer is there the apparent contrast between the gospel of discipleship/holiness/works in the Gospels & non-Pauline letters and the gospel of "grace" found in Paul's letters.

Witherington does a masterful job of breaking down the last vestiges of the stranglehold of Augustine/Luther, but he does much more than that. His insights on ancient rhetoric are invaluable because Paul uses rhetorical devices over and over in this letter; to not understand them can (and has in the past) lead to seriously flawed conclusions about what Paul is saying here. Witherington's historical insights of the Jewish and Gentile understanding of key theological concepts during the apostolic age gave me a fresh look at the text. And as those who have read his other commentaries already know, his "Closer Look" sections are interesting and often helpful. He brings to the fore the work of other scholars and gives solid, exegetical reasons why or why not their work is useful to interpret the text at hand. I even found his many footnotes interesting (conveniently located at the bottom of each page)! As a whole the book is VERY readable considering the subject matter, even when extremely technical matters are discussed, he keeps your attention!

The only caveat I have with this book is when he goes off the deep end when discussing baptism and women in the church; here he departs from his usual logical reasoning and lets his Methodist biases show. However, this only accounts for maybe a half-dozen pages.

I have found commentaries from other authors, such as N.T. Wright useful, but not totally convincing. By the time you finish this commmentary, however, you will have a solid understanding of Romans without a lot of lingering doubts. Excellent commentary for the layman, scholar or preacher!

Don't Panic!
On the front of this book in large, friendly letters, should be the words, `Don't Panic.' Anytime someone sees scholarly words like `socio' and `rhetorical,' especially when they are combined with a hyphen, I've found that they will normally go into a catatonic state that can only be broken by a beer or two.

All kidding aside, this is a great book about Romans. I appreciate Ben Witherington's writing style and so, for me, this was an easy book to slide into. Unlike many commentaries, Witherington presents his material in the same blocks of thought as the original writer rather than dissecting every single verse into individual components. That's not to say that he doesn't give information critical to individual verses. But, refreshingly, he does this in a manner which maintains the overall thought structure of the material.

Witherington's main proposition is that Romans was written to Gentile Christians who were having a hard time recognizing the value of their Jewish Christian brothers and sisters and thus causing disunity within the church in Rome. Witherington maintains that the book is written in a rhetorical format that was designed to prove a point - namely that the wonder of the new covenant is that it equally includes both Jew and Gentile.

His explanation of the place of Romans 9-11 in the total context of Romans is the best argument to date that I've seen. Also, his explanation of how the original listeners would have understood Romans 7 is quite intriguing and has many positive impacts upon the Christian life. Contrary to some of the other comments, it is critical for us to understand what the original listeners would have understood this letter to be saying (which may require an understanding of language and rhetoric) first, prior to applying the material. Though this is an oft-held hermenuetical principle, Witherington actually attempts to stick to it.

Like most of Witherington's other material, I still have not been convinced by him that a person is able to lose their salvation, which is a topic that comes up periodically in this commentary. However, it is not so imbued into the material that one cannot still attain great insights and gems of truth.

I would highly recommend this commentary to any student of Romans.

For a longer review, go to the blog listed in my nickname and click on the 'Readings' category.

A fresh view of Romans
As Ben Witherington says in the Preface, this commentary does not pretend to be exhaustive or the definitive work on Romans. Nevertheless, it is a notable one in that most readers will gain a fresh view of Paul's most important letter, even readers who are already familiar with the intricacies of Romans. How so? W. demonstrates convincingly that Paul used known Greco-Roman rhetorical principles and techniques to specific ends. The whole letter, in its structure and development, is seen as an example of deliberative rhetoric, designed to persuade or dissuade, or "the rhetoric of advice and consent." W. contends that failure to recognize the rhetoric at play has led to many misinterpretations of the letter since early times. On some points he bravely takes on Augustine and Luther and, among the moderns, such prominent interpreters of Romans as Cranfield and Kasemann.

One may cite many features of the commentary, but a few should suffice here. W.'s theological comments and notes are not new, but necessary for his argument. Imputed righteousness is a "received concept" stemming from the Latin translation of Erasmus but is not what Paul meant. Interesting are various passages that call attention to the radical nature of Paul's thinking. So is the explanation of the rhetorical technique of personification - of sin, death, Law, even grace. Sometimes W. sparkles, as when he says the effect of the contrast between Adam and Christ in Romans 5 "is like a Rembrandt painting - the dark backdrop of Adam's sin serves to highlight the brightness and clarity of God's grace gift." Two consecutive chapters on Romans 7, Retelling Adam's Tale and Adam's Lost Race, in my view make up one of the best moments of the commentary. Paul never neglected the ethical side in his letters, nor does our good author, to which matter he devotes ample comment. A minor annoyance is that W's translation does not include verse numbers, although the comments constantly refer to specific verses. A more serious blemish occurs in one Bridging the Horizons section (p. 97), where W. speaks of some scholars' "posturing," "insecurities," "lack of ego strength," and "feelings of low self-worth" - disappointing remarks in a commentary of this worth. Yet the overall excellence of the commentary makes one overlook the faux pas.

Has W. then conclusively proven his case (shared with other scholars of similar bent)? No, for that would close the book on Romans. This letter has engaged interpreters for many hundreds of years and one would expect it will continue to do so, informed by more research and study, or even - why not? - surprising new perceptions. But what W. has written is remarkable. It's been a long time since I found a commentary so engrossing.